Evidence of meeting #36 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was detention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
May 2nd, 2012 / 1:50 p.m.
President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)
It is almost impossible. On top of that, the person has to make an appointment. Try making an appointment with a family doctor in the next 15 days; let me know how that turns out. So you can imagine that obtaining a psychological report or a report from a doctor is simply impossible. It is unrealistic.
That is going to harm asylum seekers.
1:50 p.m.
Spokesperson, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
I would like to add that, within the first five days, asylum seekers have to undergo a medical exam, but it is only to make sure that they are not a danger to the public.
So people do have a medical, but it's simply to make sure they don't have TB, and if they do, there is a control. But it's not for any of these further questions.
It takes a long time to get a medical and psychological assessment, and not every doctor can do it. So it's just not possible.
In addition, as Maître Goldman pointed out, the Immigration and Refugee Board had agreed to give the transcripts of the hearing to the claimant in order for him or her to be able to make an appeal. Now, with the cutbacks, the new budgetary restrictions, the claimant is only going to get a CD recording—like a cassette, for the older people among us—of the hearing. Trying to prepare an appeal based on a CD, without seeing the paper evidence, is so horrendously impossible to think about. I think everyone should just put themselves in that situation.
Even now, when one tries to go to Federal Court, you have 15 days to submit your leave and then you have another 30 days to perfect your application. With an appeal, which could be the result of a terrible error, the need for an appeal, we have 15 days. It just boggles the mind to try to think of how you're going to do it properly. It's like saying you have it, but you don't.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Thank you very much.
Over to Mr. Dykstra, and it may only be for three minutes.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I've heard a lot of testimony from our witnesses. I appreciate that both of them have done a fairly good job with respect to their presentations.
I do think Mr. Bohbot's presentation could have been a little bit more credible had he not ventured into the political aspect of whether he personally believes the minister will have too much authority under this legislation, especially when it comes to the issues around designated countries of origin.
It's clear—and he may not be aware of the criteria we're working from—that from a UNHCR perspective, the chair, Abraham Abraham, actually told the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, less than two years ago, that they do not oppose the introduction of a designated or safe country of origin list, “as long as this is used as a procedural tool to prioritize or accelerate examination of applications in carefully circumscribed situations, and not as an absolute bar”.
Then we move forward. Many countries have used similar authorities in order to move forward on this. The United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and Finland are all countries that have implemented designated safe country proposals. I can't imagine that either of the witnesses would suggest that every single one of those countries is wrong.
I just want to remind the witnesses that in fact there are criteria built into this process. First, a country has to meet one of two quantitative thresholds or limits, which will be set out in the ministerial order. The first is the rejection rate, which will include abandonment or withdrawal claims, of a minimum of 75% must exist. Similarly, an abandonment and withdrawal rate of 60% or higher would trigger a review. I state specifically, “a review”. It doesn't mean automatically that the minister has the authority to give that country the designation. It starts a review, which is going to be done by a number of different ministries, led by CIC. And for countries we're looking at, the review would have to take place with the leadership of CIC, with a number of other ministries having input into the process, to make a determination that these criteria have been met.
If we even take it further, for claimants from countries with a low number of claims there is a qualitative checklist that would be established in legislation.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I'd love to go on, but I don't have the two minutes necessary to do it.
Thank you, Chair.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
